June 11, 2008

Children's Museum: Now the real battle begins--in court

Now that the ever-compliant Chicago City Council has voted 33-16 to approve the Chicago Children's Museum Grant Park land grab, the real battle can begin: In the courts, where there are no aldermen who cower in fear of crossing Mayor Richard M. Daley, the plan's most powerful supporter.

At the turn of the last century, it was the Illinois Supreme Court--guided by judicial precedent, rather than political influence--that upheld A. Montgomery Ward in his heroic, 20-year fight to keep Grant Park free and clear of buildings.

Today, the courts can again rise to the occasion if they recognize the folly of the museum's contentions that its new home would be entirely underground, that museums belong in Grant Park because they serve a public purpose, and that the Montgomery Ward decisions are mere, narrow-gauge legal protection for Michigan Avenue property owners.

To take those issues in order:

1) Portions of the museum would, in fact, be above ground--if "ground" is considered to be the surface of the park, and not the sidewalk on neighboring Randolph Street. The museum just happens to be covered with a clever disguise, a green roof. By no means is it entirely underground. Even Mark Sexton, the co-architect of the Children's Museum plan, has referred to the museum as a "building."

2) No one denies that museums serve a public purpose, but the Illinois Supreme Court ruled in the Ward cases that Grant Park is a special park with special rules, and that museums and other aboveground buildings don't belong there, as they do in Chicago's other lakefront parks. That's why the Field Museum is outside Grant Park. Only consent of Michigan Avenue property owners let the Art Institute (and the Harris Theater) in.

3) The Ward decisions are not simply meant to keep the park clear and free of buildings. They regulate activity within Grant Park, expressly prohibiting "circuses or exhibitons to which the public will not be admitted free." The Children's Museum charges admission, though it does have limited free-admission hours.

The core issue here is that Grant Park is not just any park, but a park that traces its ancestry back to the New England common. "Common" is the word everybody keeps forgetting in this debate.

The canal commissioners who in 1836 platted the map of Chicago's lakefront surely were aware of this notion of the common as a democratic public space. What they wrote on the edge of their map were these words: "Public Ground--A Common to Remain Forever Open, Clear and Free of any Buildings, or other Obstruction Whatever."

A privately-owned museum that charges admission and is permitted to control ground around it, as the Children's Museum may be, flies in the face of the idea of "common."

So let the battle over Chicago's common ground begin. Now that it's being fought on a level playing field--not the rigged landscape of the Daley-controlled City Council--the opponents actually stand a fighting chance.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Heroic? Get a grip. The free and clear lobby clings to anachronism over common sense. The English common was for grazing sheep. Chicago's common is for... uh, filling up with Jazz Fest I guess. I don't know. I never go there because there is nothing to do in Grant Park except enjoy grass (which I can do at 200 other parks).

Grant park is the worst park in Chicago because it is rabidly defended from improvement. Putting the museum in the park is a great idea. Just like the zoo enhances Lincoln Park, so will the children's museum make Grant Park better. People will actually go there.

But heroically defending the status quo against big bad Daley is a better story. Chicago's chattering classes will piss and moan about this then immediately discover what a great idea it was and congratulate themselves for having the foresight to live in Chicago.

You're fooling yourself if you think the courts are going to buck Daley. Didn't you hear Ald. Burke today? He's told everyone that he's married to one of the Supreme Court Justices, forchristsake, and he strongly hinted that she supports the museum. He voted for something that she is going to review. Since he was in charge of the committee that slated her, she owes her job to him. This thing is wired. Only in Chicago!

It never surprises me .....the unmitigated gall and audacity of dictator Daley....he is unbelievable........destruction of airstrips without any discussion....attempting to turn around 150 years of legal precedent with Grant park.......but then again chicago is the capital of corruption

This just shows that if the law, the people's will, the alderman, and the media are on one side, and the mayor is on the other, the mayor will win--in spite of the dubious merits of the project. It is a dark day for the parks in Chicago!

So as long as the applicant is cute and cuddly (and, of course, favored by the Mayor) they can appropriate public land? What a crock. Here's hoping the courts exhibit some backbone and kick this one back.

Really? The worst park in Chicago? Do you live in Chicago? Do you know the very poor state of our neighborhood parks? Visit the "Fieldhouse" at Beverly Park or spend a minute talking to the housewives in Mount Greenwood who literally baked cakes night and day so to raise several hundred thousand dollars to rehab their park's playlot. They were obviously mistaken when they thought their tax dollars would do that for them.

Grant Park is Chicago's worst park? Chicago's most famous park; its most photographed park (visit a postcard kiosk); its front yard. Yes - front yard - which to a true Chicagoan means manicured grass, pruned trees and well attended flower beds. It truly represents real Chicago - by that I mean those of us in the city living within 25 by 125 lots.

We typically keep the amusements (i.e. deck; garage; grill; pool; etc) in the back yard. You need to get a grip and realize that just because you don't enjoy the quiet peacefulness of Grant Park's green expanses - many others do. Along with following law; precedent and tradition - as opposed to the common sense of those who either can't appreciate a break from the city bustle or can't help but defend those who may hold the puppet strings of jobs; contracts and favors.

Wow. The Tribune isn't interested in a plan for the Chicago Children's Museum to build into Daley Bicentennial Plaza. The site as it stands now looks like a soviet missile bunker shoehorned into an angry (and talent free) person's idea of a French garden, but the Tribune thinks that this is somehow worth saving. I guess that the Tribune was really for saving the below ground level open air parking lot that was there before Millennium Park, because they hated the plan for that too.

The opposition to the museum's move remind me so much of proponents of Intelligent Design. The guise of civic mindedness is weak and barely visible. The plea that this is just start of wholesale destruction of the parks (parks which are much larger and better put together than when I got here in 93), and that Mayor Daley is a chronic park destroyer is just flat out bogus.

I have to thank the opposition to CCM's move for forcing the museum to redraw their plans over and over again, because now the design is really good. It's much more attractive and harmonious than the first one, but the Tribune's coverage of this issue has been an embarrassment. I can only guess that they cover everything else as poorly because, with the recent exception of this story, I try to never touch the Tribune.

It's really sad that Mayor Daley invested all his political muscle into the museum move and inflicted so much hate from the very voters who've stood behind him election after election when others came close to ousting him. He's been so full of vision in the past that I'm surprised he didn't offer a compromise site and elect to make the Chicago Children's Museum a city/private entity on the scale of the Indianapolis Children's Museum.

Imagine the architectural spectacle that could've been: an amazing use of materials and angularity by Herzog & de Meuron. Something using light and space in interesting ways by Tadao Ando. Maybe even a fantastic and inspirational design by Tigerman.

Whatever the case, Chicagoans will never know the result of what could have been--just what they're children will be lowered and sealed in to.

People who say they are fed up with the Mayor and his gutless followers on the City Council can do something about all of this right now and start making serious, major changes to the way their city is run. It is very simple. When it comes times for the members of the City Council who sided with the mayor on this stupid Children’s Museum move to come up for re-election, either vote for whoever is running against them, or put in a write-in candidate like John Q. Public instead of voting them back into office. In other words, kick out the old Aldermen who have helped Daley in driving the city literally into the ground. I am talking, Burke, I am talking Stone, I am talking of all these tired old dinosaurs who have been allowed to fill their pockets with tax payers monies while paying homage to the name DALEY for years. And then, when Daley comes up for re-election, at long last stand up to the guy and vote him out of office as well.

Chicago residents have got to stop bowing to the same-old-same-old/this-is-the-way-it-has-always-been philosophical nonsense that has been running Chicago for who knows how long. It is time for a major change to come into the city, one that would reduce taxes, improve conditions and bring Chicago back to being one of the great places to live, raise a family, and build a future. But it won’t happen if Chicago residents keep re-electing these same old politicos back into office again and again and again.

People like Burke and Stone have now proven they do not care about you, they only care for themselves and what is best for them. They have always been this way, and it is now time for people to realize that fact!

Chicago, you say you want change, real change? Then vote these people out of office! THAT is how you instigate change! THAT is how you can turn things around! THAT is how you can take your city back!

I’m still confused on why the CCM wouldn't it want to move with the rest of the museum's? Why are they so adamant about this location?
If they are so set on housing the Children's Museum underground add a couple of sub levels to an above ground structure so in 15 year, when they out grow that space, they can just occupy the upper floors of the preexisting structure.
Instead, what will happen if it is placed in Grant Park, of filing a petition to build up on an existing structure and getting that passed through our spineless city counsel, and low and behold we now have a structure impeding our open views.
Not to mention the fact that Randolph is a dead end Street. So our tax dollars are going to be spent to redo all 3 levels of Randolph, which is probably the only road in Chicago that currently doesn’t need repair, but I digress. Maybe everyone is thinking that it’s ok for the 500,000 annual visitors to just do U-Turns. I’m just perplexed by the uncompromising approach to this discussion. Sure they’ve changed the design but the design was never the issue.